[News Roundup] CSEC/City arena deal UPDATED: Third Party Facilitator

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

The flames could move to a bigger market and build a new arena on private economics. Or just move to a market where such an arena already exists.

I don't believe public money was required in Vegas or in Seattle. Because they're big markets and the business case justifies itself. The business case does not justify itself in Calgary.

Realistically, if you're a small market and you want a team, you pay for it via higher ticket prices and arena subsidies. Like Winnipeg, like Nashville, like Edmonton.

And if youre a small market and don't want a team, you don't need to have one. There are 32 teams and I'm willing to bet Calgary isn't in the 32 top metro areas of Canada/US. The NHL doesn't need to have a franchise here. An owner doesn't need to operate here either.

The fact that Murray Edwards operates the team at breakeven here rather than sell it for $500m to someone who can profitably run it in Houston, is charity and community service in and of itself.

He doesn't owe you or the city anything at all. The fact that you expect him to spend more money out of his own pocket for your happiness is insane.

Reading some of these posts is like reading the fable about the golden goose.

Originally Posted by Locke

Wow. Are you skimming or actually paying attention?

Reading this post I'm envisioning a giant 'WOOSHING' noise when finance is being discussed.

This is a direct response to a post from last page but I didn't want to start an argument with that specific person

Oops. Multi quote has sold me out

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Seattle:

2006 - CEO of Starbucks owns Seattle Sonics and says he wants to keep team in Seattle, but public money is needed. City of Seattle balks at cost ($200m). Owner sells team to outside group because City of Seattle won't contribute $200m for new arena

2007 - Steve Balmer of Microsoft offers to buy team and partially pay 50% of arena costs if City of Seattle will pay remainder. Seattle says says no to the $150m cost.

2008 - Seattle SuperSonics relocate to Oklahoma due to lack of public funding

2016 - After 8 years with no professional sports team, Seattle spends $1.1 billion of public money for arena (100% of cost) to entice an NHL and NBA franchise to the city.

Outcome:
Seattle pays full cost instead of having a public-private partnership because of "principles"
Seattle pays $1,100,000,000 instead of $150m because of "principles"
Seattle lost NBA team because of "principles"

Ideals vs Reality 101

You omit some key details, like the new ownership group bargaining in bad faith:

In months prior to the settlement, Seattle publicly released email conversations that took place within Bennett's ownership group alleging they indicated that some members of the group had a desire to move the team to Oklahoma City prior to its purchase in 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattl..._Oklahoma_City

Many messy lawsuits ensued; the owners ended up paying Seattle $75M to break the lease, and another $30M in relocation fee.


And from everything I've read, the Key Arena renovation was 100% privately funded...

Who owns the land the arena sits on?
The City of Seattle and OVG have signed a 39-year lease with two, eight-year renewable options (for a potential total lease of 55 years).
The Arena was entirely privately financed by OVG with no City financing; the current project cost estimate is $1.15 Billion. All costs and potential cost-overruns of construction and arena operations are the responsibility of OVG.

Is the City or its taxpayers at risk for any portion of the project?
The City (Seattle Center) receives rent payment to cover the revenue generated by KeyArena and the 1st Avenue North Parking Garage operations, as well as campus sponsorship rights.

OVG assumed the risk of cost overruns during construction including the risk increased cost due to unknown environmental conditions.

OVG is responsible for arena operations and maintenance of the facility over the life of the Lease Term; OVG assumes the risks and costs of operating and maintaining the arena.

So...playing hardball worked out pretty damn well.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I don't have much else to add, other than, it's amazing watching blue collar people like ourselves argue over arena financing. The team is owned by people who are so wealthy that this is a hobby to them, the idea that we should, as taxpayers, be bled to pay out of pocket so they can have a fancy arena to further increase their windfalls is completely insane. The corporate brainwashing is impressive, albeit awful for society. Someone said it best in the thread already, the way that these rich owners extort cities for their fancy toys is actually criminal.

It's easy to take advantage of the masses if they think they might lose their bread and circuses.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Seattle:

2006 - CEO of Starbucks owns Seattle Sonics and says he wants to keep team in Seattle, but public money is needed. City of Seattle balks at cost ($200m). Owner sells team to outside group because City of Seattle won't contribute $200m for new arena

2007 - Steve Balmer of Microsoft offers to buy team and partially pay 50% of arena costs if City of Seattle will pay remainder. Seattle says says no to the $150m cost.

2008 - Seattle SuperSonics relocate to Oklahoma due to lack of public funding

2016 - After 8 years with no professional sports team, Seattle spends $1.1 billion of public money for arena (100% of cost) to entice an NHL and NBA franchise to the city.

Outcome:
Seattle pays full cost instead of having a public-private partnership because of "principles"
Seattle pays $1,100,000,000 instead of $150m because of "principles"
Seattle lost NBA team because of "principles"

Ideals vs Reality 101

[Mull]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

This is a direct response to a post from last page but I didn't want to start an argument with that specific person

Oops. Multi quote has sold me out

I am confused on what I did and what I or you got wooshed on

[PepsiFree]

It’d be interesting to see what would happen if Calgary had to establish an identity that had nothing to do with the Flames.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’d be interesting to see what would happen if Calgary had to establish an identity that had nothing to do with the Flames.

We just wear cowboy hats more often

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

You omit some key details, like the new ownership group bargaining in bad faith:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattl..._Oklahoma_City

Many messy lawsuits ensued; the owners ended up paying Seattle $75M to break the lease, and another $30M in relocation fee.


And from everything I've read, the Key Arena renovation was 100% privately funded...



So...playing hardball worked out pretty damn well.

When you're wrong, you're wrong!

This is helpful. I didn't realize this was fully funded privately. What a great deal for Seattle. Crazy they still lost an NBA team over this and still don't have one.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

When you're wrong, you're wrong!

This is helpful. I didn't realize this was fully funded privately. What a great deal for Seattle. Crazy they still lost an NBA team over this and still don't have one.

Winnipeg's arena only cost the taxpayers 40 million, which I think was 1/3rd. I think the robber barons at Flames ownership want 50/50

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's hard to argue that he doesn't make great points. It would be nice if every city just said no so using public funds wasn't even a thing. But as long as some do, it puts pressure on others.

It's the same catch 22 when it comes to corporate tax rates. Prisoner's dilemma.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I don't have much else to add, other than, it's amazing watching blue collar people like ourselves argue over arena financing.

According to CP’s internal poling, you’re probably not debating with as many “blue collar” people as you think.

Would you stop and think about the poor owners for just one minute? How are they supposed to make money off their 3..whoops..4 sports franchises they have playing out of the saddle dome if we don’t help pay for a new arena?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

It's the same catch 22 when it comes to corporate tax rates. Prisoner's dilemma.

Not at all. Low tax rates encourage economic development and allow a better return on capital.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Not at all. Low tax rates encourage economic development and allow a better return on capital.

lol

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Not at all. Low tax rates encourage economic development and allow a better return on capital.

Preach it brother!

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

According to CP’s internal poling, you’re probably not debating with as many “blue collar” people as you think.

Would you stop and think about the poor owners for just one minute? How are they supposed to make money off their 3..whoops..4 sports franchises they have playing out of the saddle dome if we don’t help pay for a new arena?

I sometimes forget CP's filled with the upper crust.

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Will never happen, Bettman is too narcissistic to give up on that market.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by GGG

We just wear cowboy hats more often

We can wear our Levis, cowboy boots and cowboy hats to the Wranglers game at Winsport where we reminisce about the good times when we were chillin at the dome with Jarome.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

You omit some key details, like the new ownership group bargaining in bad faith:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattl..._Oklahoma_City

Many messy lawsuits ensued; the owners ended up paying Seattle $75M to break the lease, and another $30M in relocation fee.


And from everything I've read, the Key Arena renovation was 100% privately funded...



So...playing hardball worked out pretty damn well.

Not at all comparable with the Calgary situation. To begin with, there was already infrastructure in place that formed the basis for the renovation. The group, which was largely driven by Amazon, applied for $70M in tax credits for preserving the historic roof of the structure. More importantly, with a metro population of nearly four times the metro population of Calgary, an arena/entertainment venue in Seattle will likely actually be profitable for the owners, as it has the potential to be used to capacity most nights.

Calgary doesn't have Amazon backing the development of an event centre, and it doesn't have the population to fill it every night. So the city has to decide whether it would rather save the tax dollars or go without an event centre, because it can't realistically do both. This isn't to say that either choice is right or wrong, only that playing hardball with the Flames will not get the same result as Seattle got.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I sometimes forget CP's filled with the upper crust.

We're a double-meat at Subway kind of crowd.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

That word doesn't mean what you think it means

It certainly does.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...20for%20others.

That is Bettman to a tee.